I've encountered the idea that in 1984, Gary Hart had more pledged delegates, but Mondale won because he had more superdelegates. I just want to be clear that this is untrue and shouldn't be used to support your candidate, whoever that may be. The race between Mondale and Hart was close, but Mondale had a lead in pledged delegates BEFORE the majority of superdelegates jumped in.
Because I was a teenager then, and I haven't been able to find actual delegate totals from 1984, I'm relying on other sources, but here are 2.
Here's a post on open left:
From 1984 to 2004, the overwhelming majority of super delegates have cast their convention votes for the candidate who won more votes during the primary and caucus season. This was just as true for Mondale in 1984 as it was for Kerry in 2004.
And here is an op-ed in the NYT
In 1984, the superdelegates stepped in to provide a majority for Walter Mondale — who had a huge edge in pledged delegates over Gary Hart but not enough to win the nomination — avoiding a potentially bitter and divisive convention that would have fractured the party.
So, while I don't think anyone should leave anything on the table, and I'm sure the Clinton and Obama camps will continue to court superdelegates, I'm quite confident that whoever wins pledged delegates will win the support of the superdelegates and thus the nomination.
And I'd like to remind everyone that, despite what you may have heard, there IS no precedent for superdelegates chosing the candidate who did not get the most pledged delegates.
It's a pledged delegate battle and has always been a pledged delegate battle. So just win, baby...